Saket Suryesh: "Why Writers Should Read the Classics"

I think everyone should be familiar with the classics, but especially writers. However, that doesn't mean modern writers should write like Charlotte Bronte or Charles Dickens.

But I see a lot of books apparently written with no appreciation of the plots and tropes they are rehashing, while the ones in which the author clearly does know his or her classics tend to be better reads. This is true even in genre fiction.

And it's painful reading Goodreads reviews by people who have apparently never read a book that's older than they are.

"The Classics are Not Timeless", a rebuttal by Eric Williams.

The danger of the numinous label of “The Classics” is that it kills texts. It becomes holy writ, studied for its intrinsic rightness, ahistorical and timeless. Nothing is more dangerous. Books are discrete historical objects, written by specific individuals at specific times, and their subsequent histories reflect how people envisioned literature, artistic merit and important ideas in the larger context of their times and culture. By all means, read them for their beautiful language and interesting imagery, and interpret them based on your own private and individual history and perspectives. But at the same time, read them as historical documents, fully aware of the baggage that comes with them and fully cognizant that someone somewhere decided that the book in your hands had more value than other books. Echoing Suryesh, read the classics voraciously — but, I would add, always thoughtfully, critically and historically.

Click to expand...

The classics have inspired me greatly, and I think they should be read. There's a reason they are classic and have bubbled to the top over everything else published at the same time.

The sense I get from the snippet posted is a mistaken idea that in the past EVERY book written adhered to the same level of quality, and that nothing was formulaic or contrived and that marketing never played a role. That's simply not true. Mark Twain cut a bunch of stuff from Huck Finn partly because the publisher wanted to sell it and Tom Sawyer as a box set and needed to keep the price low, and there has always been bad literature. I think writers should be as well read in the good stuff in their genre coming out today, and there is plenty, as they are in the classics.

I would recommend reading "the classics" simply because they can give a writer examples of story-telling technique and methods. Certainly more than a few of these books would never get published now because they don't reflect the overall "modern style", but there is definitely something to be learned from reading them. If nothing else, they'll open your creative mind a bit more.

If one is serious about the field of endeavor one is engaged in, it's a good idea to understand the history of that field. Regardless of their stylistic stature or their potential to enrich one's language, "classics" are the history of the writing craft and a valuable resource for that reason alone.

Hapax Legomenon said:

"The Classics are Not Timeless", a rebuttal by Eric Williams.

Click to expand...

In my opinion, that whole article is as dumb as a sack full of hammers. It misses the entire point of why we should read teh classics.

Many classics are not particularly well-written, but they most certainly are timeless. They aren't timeless because they're "historical documents", and they aren't timeless because of the beautiful language. They're timeless for the same reason they're classics, which is because they tell a timeless truth about the human condition.

Shakespeare was most certainly brilliant at writing prose, but his stories remain timeless because of what he had to say, because of content. Romero and Juliet alone has probably been told a thousand times, in a thousand ways, and with a tousand variations since Shakespeare wrote it. The language changes, but the story remains timeless because Shakespeare capured young love, and struggle, and corruption, and selflessness as few others have.

It is no historical document, it's a tale still lived today, and that will still be lived by real people a thousand years from now.

How about Shakespeare's sonnet 76?

Why is my verse so barren of new pride,
So far from variation or quick change?
Why with the time do I not glance aside
To new-found methods, and to compounds strange?
Why write I still all one, ever the same,
And keep invention in a noted weed,
That every word doth almost tell my name,
Showing their birth, and where they did proceed?
O! know sweet love I always write of you,
And you and love are still my argument;
So all my best is dressing old words new,
Spending again what is already spent:
For as the sun is daily new and old,
So is my love still telling what is told.

This isn't history, this is today, it's right now, and it sounds a bell any writer should hear loud and clear.

It's content that makes the classics timeless. No one says we should write like Shakespeare, but anyone who says his writing is simply a pile of historical documents with no meaning for writer's today just doesn't get it.

Thinkers in every field, be it a musician, a doctor, a layer, a physicist, or a writer, either stands on the shoulders of those who came before, or he remains a pygmy forever.

Of course the classics are timeless, and the writer who doesn't read them is, and will remain, a pygmy.

shadowwalker said:

Certainly more than a few of these books would never get published now because they don't reflect the overall "modern style", but there is definitely something to be learned from reading them. If nothing else, they'll open your creative mind a bit more.

Click to expand...

I feel like probably the greatest or at least greatest overlooked value of reading the classics as a writer is to give perspective. There's so much going around in writer's circles about what is "good" and "bad" writing and what does and does get published. If you don't read the classics and only read modern literature you'll never know that these standards are ultimately fleeting and ephemeral and tastes in literature are still changing and developing.

I honestly can't imagine developing any writing skills worth having without being exposed to the classics, at least to some degree. As Jamesaritchie said, they're classics for a reason. They've survived the test of time.

I think the classics are important, but for young readers/writers, should be approached with caution. One thing I hated as a child was being shoved a book and told, "You'll love this!" I went to a small high school, so I had the same English teacher. The only books I can remember reading are "To Kill A Mockingbird" "Crime and Punishment" and "The Scarlet Letter." We read the last one more than the others. I hated it each time. I wasn't ready for stories that required effort (but I do like Mockingbird and Punishment).

For me, the classics offer a window into our own history. As a writer, they can help answer the question of transferring one's life experiences into a narrative. My favorite "classic" at this moment is "The Winter of Our Discontent" by John Steinbeck. I would never have liked it if you'd made me read it ten years ago. But it touched upon a truth that resonated with me.

Some of them are famous because the subject matter hadn't been done before. Hemingway showed people the grim reality of surviving a war and what it does to a man's mind. Faulkner portrayed a family struggling to maintain in the midst of a dying social order in the Deep South.

The "classics" are where we get the expression Great American Novel, because these masters had the knack for capturing the essence of their times, how people moved and felt.

I suppose they might be worth reading so you get an idea of the archetypical stock characters and well-trod story lines that seem to appeal to the plebes.

jennontheisland said:

I suppose they might be worth reading so you get an idea of the archetypical stock characters and well-trod story lines that seem to appeal to the plebes.

Click to expand...

Do elaborate.

Amadan said:

Do elaborate.

Click to expand...

An English prof insisted to me that the Classics are worth reading because they were the best sellers of their time.... So, like Twilight?

jennontheisland said:

An English prof insisted to me that the Classics are worth reading because they were the best sellers of their time.... So, like Twilight?

Click to expand...

.... no.

James - you and I will have to agree to disagree about Shakespeare. I actually believe the opposite, that the reason he has stayed around is because of his beautifully crafted prose, not his stories many of which have very silly contrived plots. What makes Shakespeare timeless is his understanding of human nature, his ability to share human truths that come across as incredibly modern. He understood psychology before there was psychology. And his poetry is catchy like music. Sometimes I walk down the street and find myself reciting his poetry as if I'm singing a song. So to me, it's his writing not his plotting that makes him still relevant and wonderful today.


As for reading the classics: absolutely yes. You should understand your history. But also I think many writers would be stunned how inventive authors of the past were with their storytelling. Many authors today write very A then B then C. There was a lot more playing around with form in the past. And certainly the works that have survived the centuries tend to be more innovative than likely the ones that got lost along the way.

At any rate, you don't need to emulate the classic authors, but reading them, understanding what they were doing, just acquiring new tools for the tool box. Definitely worthwhile.

(I should add I think people should read plays, poems, graphic novels etc as well)

Sophia said:

After several attempts, over a couple of decades, I have found that I can't read Shakespeare. The words form no images in my mind. I read a line and I can't comprehend its meaning. It is frustrating. I rely on summaries and explanations rather than the original text.

Click to expand...

Have you ever attempted to watch it? It wasn't meant to be read after all. You need to hear the poetry. I found when I was studying it the only way I could get through reading it was to read it out loud. I highly recommend renting (or downloading) Kenneth Branagh's MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING (with Denzel Washington and Keanu Reeves (!)). I think it's one of the most accessible Shakespeares that's still quite period. If you want to go a totally different way, Baz Luhrmann's ROMEO AND JULIET is another very accessible production.

I was fortunate that the class I took which explored Shakespeare was a good one, good enough that it allowed me to penetrate the language barrier. I agree that listening to a good reading of the plays is a much more effective way to access their living quality than coming to it cold on the page.

Forsooth!

William Haskins said:

great advice. would also recommend laurence fishburne as othello.

Click to expand...

Ooh yes, another good one! And you also get the joy of watching Kenneth Branagh chew marvellous scenery as Iago.


ETA: One of the reasons I recommend the MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING is that it is a comedy and so full of life and joy, and therefore as a viewer you can relax and enjoy, not worry as much about the drama and seriousness etc. The opening ten minutes or so for this particular MUCH ADO is one of my favourite openings captured on film (the music is just awesome), it starts soft and quiet but builds into this excited frenzy of amazing . And yes, that's a young Kate Beckinsale.

And since I need to share, here it is! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIACPr5XEQM

Oops! Forgot there were some tushes in this, so I guess a NSFW warning .

I second Toothpaste - Shakespeare is meant to be watched or listened to. His plays can be dry reading, but even an audiobook performance improves them immensely.

Also this is very true:

Toothpaste said:

But also I think many writers would be stunned how inventive authors of the past were with their storytelling. Many authors today write very A then B then C. There was a lot more playing around with form in the past. And certainly the works that have survived the centuries tend to be more innovative than likely the ones that got lost along the way.

Click to expand...

All the big, meaty classics - Bleak House, The Way We Live Now, Les Miserables, Crime and Punishment, The Count of Monte Cristo, etc. - went off into numerous subplots and explored multiple themes, dived into the backgrounds of dozens of secondary characters, and experimented in ways few modern writers do. Some of that translates to the modern reader as wordiness and irrelevancy and infodumps (do we really need a chapter about the history of medieval French convents because a convent plays a minor part in the story, Hugo?) but "stock characters and archetypal storylines for the plebes".... no.

Probably a tangent, here, but am I the only one slightly saddened at the implication that "the classics" seem to automatically mean "the English-language classics", even to someone from India?

Brightdreamer said:

Probably a tangent, here, but am I the only one slightly saddened at the implication that "the classics" seem to automatically mean "the English-language classics", even to someone from India?

Click to expand...

I mentioned Hugo, Dumas, and Dostoevseky. The original writer did not, but probably would include them.

Brightdreamer said:

Probably a tangent, here, but am I the only one slightly saddened at the implication that "the classics" seem to automatically mean "the English-language classics", even to someone from India?

Click to expand...

This is something that's definitely noted in Eric Williams's rebuttal I posted earlier.